1 unchanged sentence
Intermodal Drayage Classification Claims
−Removed: Certain of our intermodal drayage subsidiaries are defendants in several multi-plaintiff and class action litigations brought by independent contract carriers in California who contracted with these subsidiaries.
−Removed: In these cases, the contract carriers, and in some instances the contract carriers’ employees, assert that they should be classified as employees, rather than independent contractors.
−Removed: The particular claims asserted vary from case to case but generally include claims for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid wages for missed meal and rest periods, reimbursement of certain of the contract carriers’ business expenses, and Labor Code penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act.
−Removed: In two cases in which a federal district court in Los Angeles has certified classes, we are contesting the certification rulings.
−Removed: We are unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that we may incur as a result of these claims given, among other reasons, that the range of potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings by the courts involved, including on the merits of the claims.
−Removed: Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims
−Removed: Some of our last mile logistics subsidiaries are defendants in several putative class action litigations brought by independent contract carriers in multiple jurisdictions who contracted with these subsidiaries.
−Removed: In these cases, the contract carriers, and in certain instances the contract carriers’ employees, assert that they should be classified as employees, rather than independent contractors.
−Removed: The particular claims asserted vary from case to case but generally include claims for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid wages for missed meal and rest periods, and reimbursement of the contract carriers’ business expenses.
−Removed: We are unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess of our accrued liability that we may incur as a result of these claims given, among other reasons, that the number and identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are uncertain and the range of potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings by the courts involved, including on the merits of the claims.
+Added: Certain of our intermodal drayage subsidiaries are defendants in class action litigations brought by independent contract carriers in California who contracted with these subsidiaries.
+Added: In these cases, the contract carriers assert that they should be classified as employees, rather than independent contractors.
+Added: In two related cases pending in Federal District Court in Los Angeles, Alvarez v.
+Added: XPO Logistics Cartage, LLC and Arrellano v.
+Added: XPO Port Services, Inc.
+Added: , the Court has certified classes beginning in April 2016 and March 2013, respectively.
+Added: Plaintiffs allege that defendants exercised an impermissible degree of control over plaintiffs’ operations through the terms of the parties’ contracts and defendants’ policies, including enforcement of requirements imposed on motor carriers by state and federal law.
+Added: The particular claims asserted vary from case to case but generally include claims that, should the contract carriers be determined to be employees, they would be entitled to reimbursement for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid
+Added: wages for missed meal and rest periods, reimbursement of certain of the contract carriers’ business expenses (including fuel and insurance related costs), Labor Code penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act, and attorneys’ fees and costs associated with bringing the action.
+Added: Discovery is ongoing in these matters, and defendants continue to mount a vigorous defense on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims, including as to the threshold issue of employment classification.
+Added: Both cases are scheduled for trial in September 2021;
+Added: however, this date may be impacted or significantly delayed by the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on Court operations, including the scheduling of jury trials.
+Added: We anticipate further legal rulings from the Court at or before trial that may substantially affect the scope of the claims asserted.
+Added: As a result, we are unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that we may incur as a result of these claims.
Shareholder Litigation
9 unchanged sentences
Defendants moved to dismiss the first amended consolidated class action complaint on March 3, 2020.
−Removed: Briefing on defendants’ motion was completed on June 18, 2020, and the Court heard oral argument on June 30, 2020.
−Removed: The Court has not yet issued a decision on defendants’ motion to dismiss.
+Added: On March 19, 2021, the Court dismissed the first amended consolidated class action complaint with prejudice and closed the case.
+Added: The Pension Funds filed a notice of appeal, and the appellate process is ongoing.
Also, on May 13, 2019, Adriana Jez filed a purported shareholder derivative action captioned Jez v.
9 unchanged sentences
The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion on July 6, 2020.
−Removed: Defendants have not yet answered or moved against the operative complaint.
−Removed: We believe these suits are without merit and we intend to defend the company vigorously against the allegations.
+Added: On April 14, 2021, the Court issued an order staying proceedings pending resolution of an appeal in the Labul action.
+Added: Plaintiffs stipulated that they will dismiss the shareholder derivative action with prejudice if the Labul dismissal is affirmed on appeal.
+Added: We believe these suits are without merit and we intend to defend the company vigorously.
We are unable at this time to determine the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that we may incur as a result of these matters.
+Added: Risk Factors.
+Added: There are no material changes to the risk factors previously disclosed in Part I, Item 1A of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020.
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.